Over the past couple of weeks, I have watched programmes from animal programmes to just day to day programmes where the theory of evolution is seen as fact. Switched on the tv and the usual ranting on about our "ancestors" etc.
My question why do you think something which is very doubtful and to this day remains a theory is pushed so heavily on us?
"Lo! the Hour is surely coming, there is no doubt thereof; yet most of mankind believe not." (Al-Ghafir:59)
I agree with you, it is mutational "Change" and "Change" in essence is Evolutionary change. So I fail to see your objection.
I think that Azim’s point was that you cannot compare the two diffrent cases. For a virus to beneficially mutate, al it needs is a diffrent shape. For a human gene to beneficially mutate it needs a new order thus the ability to make new enzymes. The first is quite easy (in terms of probability) were as the second is not!
This is the guts of our debate in reference to the Evolution of the human eyes. Firstly, I would like to express what mutation actually can be within evolutionary fields. Organisms carry an enormous arsenal of inactive genes and residual DNA. I think some of the mutations that we find that have resulted in beneficial changes occur when a gene that was once active and beneficial millions of years ago for an ancestor with a different niche becomes active again and provides a new advantage now that the organism has again changed environments.
Well first of all these are all asumptions. As far as I know there is no record of eyeless creatures carrying inactive eye-genes. You’r more then welcome to prove me wrong on that of course. Secondly, these inactive genes (as illustrated in your example) is mostly the case of a characteristic (heavy bones/light bones) that some where along the way got lost by the creature, not the other way around. It’s true that in some cases these inactive genes can become active again, but there’s no reason to believe that this actually happend.
Evolution does not have to create from scratch and it rarely does. We have to bear in mind that ALL LIFE SHARES A BIG GENETIC MATCH.
No, that’s were you’r wrong. Evolution does have to work from scrap. What you are suggesting: “evolution made inactive mutations ready inside genes so it could then when the time is wright mutate an eye” is not evolution! Most evolution-theorist would laugh that away as ID and creationist-theory.
Please take note that what you suggest goes against survival of the fittest, against the probability of the proces being random rather then regulated, against evolution.
If we now go back to known evolutionary beginnings then firstly (and I do not know myself) why does it have to be a single celled organism that developed light sensitive cells. At this stage so early in the evolution of life, the development of light sensitive cells is a chemical mutational change that could easily have occured in early multi-cellular life. Secondly, early light sensitive cells are not yet "eyes" but the ability to react to light will bring a massive evolutionary advantage and would quickly come to dominate nearly all life. From here time and adaptation will do the rest. Eyes would have been at an advanced level well before the very first fish started to occupy dry land.
Quite wright. Nonetheless if evolution wisches to pose as an alternative for creation, it needs to thouroughly show how you get from a single cell organism to a seeing creature, and even further then that.
OK, here is an intermediate stage:
An ancient family of fish thought to be the direct ancestors of land vertebrates takes this adaptation one step further. The three living lungfish, one in each of Australia, Africa and South America, live in muddy streams that are prone to drying. Oxygen levels are low and the fish must sometimes burrow in the mud to survive droughts. Clearly, gills are not the best respiratory surfaces under such circumstances. The lungfish have adapted the swim bladder as a lung by diverting the artery from the sixth gill arch directly to it. Thus it receives deoxygenated blood under fairly high pressure. The vein returning from the lung then adds oxygenated blood to the heart, reducing the amount of oxygen that must be picked up in the gills.
I must be missing something, but the way you discribed it it does not serve as an intermediate system. It’s a single surculatory system with a secundairy source of air. It may serve as an intermediate form between gills and lungs, but it does not serve as an intermediate system between single circulatory and double circulatory systems. (see attachment)
Last edited by Abdul Fattah; 09-25-2005 at 04:39 PM.
I think that Azim’s point was that you cannot compare the two diffrent cases. For a virus to beneficially mutate, al it needs is a diffrent shape. For a human gene to beneficially mutate it needs a new order thus the ability to make new enzymes. The first is quite easy (in terms of probability) were as the second is not!
I have thought long and hard over this comment. I still cannot understand this, what exactly do you mean that a virus only needs to change shape!
Well first of all these are all asumptions. As far as I know there is no record of eyeless creatures carrying inactive eye-genes. You’r more then welcome to prove me wrong on that of course. Secondly, these inactive genes (as illustrated in your example) is mostly the case of a characteristic (heavy bones/light bones) that some where along the way got lost by the creature, not the other way around. It’s true that in some cases these inactive genes can become active again, but there’s no reason to believe that this actually happend.
Science is not allowed to make assumptions. That is called an hypothosis, creatures alive today have no eyes yet retain the genetic coding to have them. For example like bats & moles, some crabs are now born without eyes retain the genetic coding for eyes and still develop "rods" to which the eyes use to be attached but are not any longer.
I find your other point dogmatic, you accept inactuve genes can become active again yet you state thier is no reason to believe this to happen. Not only DOES it happen but it is one of the biggest causes of cancer when it does happen. Of course cancer is not the only cause of inactive genes reactivating. But if what you claim is true then we simply would not have half the cancers around today. The bombshell is that we do.
No, that’s were you’r wrong. Evolution does have to work from scrap. What you are suggesting: “evolution made inactive mutations ready inside genes so it could then when the time is wright mutate an eye” is not evolution! Most evolution-theorist would laugh that away as ID and creationist-theory.
Please take note that what you suggest goes against survival of the fittest, against the probability of the proces being random rather then regulated, against evolution.
You once said you was an atheist. I don't understand why you don't display basic evolutionary understanding. Evolution in all species today did not require to start from scratch, since we share about 70% of genes to all life (both active and inactive). It would be just plain dumb to think we need to mutate an eye, for our crab for example when the genetic coding for it already exists albeit redundant. Your point is worthless for your understanding of redundent/active genes is way off the real world.
Quite wright. Nonetheless if evolution wisches to pose as an alternative for creation, it needs to thouroughly show how you get from a single cell organism to a seeing creature, and even further then that.
and so it does, with some gaps. But what we kbow so far is enough to show creationism is a lie.
I must be missing something, but the way you discribed it it does not serve as an intermediate system. It’s a single surculatory system with a secundairy source of air. It may serve as an intermediate form between gills and lungs, but it does not serve as an intermediate system between single circulatory and double circulatory systems.
You are missing the point. Secondary source of air which involves extra heart valves and evolution does the rest........
With all the debating you have done with me. You have yet to provide one credible source for creationism, This is typical since you have no evidence.
I havent read much but i recommend this site...http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_darwinism.php
its blowing ure evolution theory aparts, thats what i heard... and if ure a follower of darwanism u should read little in his book The Origin of Life ehere darwin suggested that European white races had progressed in evolution, whereas the other races where still at the same levels as apes.
wa allahu alem... i read that in the book for beginners
Root - First I’d like to apologise for not replying for some time. September means student life starts again and free time soon disappears so I have not been able to find time to keep up with this. Secondly, a different debate has continued between yourself and Steve so I will simply state what I have to say on some points you have raised.
This is the guts of our debate in reference to the Evolution of the human eyes. Firstly, I would like to express what mutation actually can be within evolutionary fields. Organisms carry an enormous arsenal of inactive genes and residual DNA. I think some of the mutations that we find that have resulted in beneficial changes occur when a gene that was once active and beneficial millions of years ago for an ancestor with a different niche becomes active again and provides a new advantage now that the organism has again changed environments.
It doesn’t matter how many inactive genes are carried since they would have to get their in the first place. This is completely irrelevant to the topic of debate – why mention it?
Evolution does not have to create from scratch and it rarely does. We have to bear in mind that ALL LIFE SHARES A BIG GENETIC MATCH.
So…the very first cells in the earliest stages of evolution shared a big genetic match with me. No. So evolution does have to start from scratch. You are defending evolution from the present day back; I’m talking about evolution from the beginning forward. If the theory is correct, it should be valid both ways.
If we now go back to known evolutionary beginnings then firstly (and I do not know myself) why does it have to be a single celled organism that developed light sensitive cells.
It doesn’t matter whethers it is single or multi-celled, the point remains that at least ONE cell would have to become sensitive to light. This leads back to my original argument. Feels like we’re going in circles here.
On the topic of the double circulatory system.
The lungfish have adapted the swim bladder as a lung by diverting the artery from the sixth gill arch directly to it.
How exactly does evolution ‘divert’ the artery? How exactly does a swim bladder become a lung? I thought you had a decent knowledge about evolution and biology. This saldy proves you otherwise. A swim bladder is a sack full of air. A lung is a complex organ with hundreds of processes going on.
The rest of your explanation relating to the four-chambered heart has one major flaw. It doesn’t explain how a four-chambered heart came into existence through evolution, it explains ‘why’, but science asks ‘how’, and that is what I asked you.
But what we kbow so far is enough to show creationism is a lie.
cre•a•tion•ism (kr - sh -n z m)
n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.
I’d prefer not to claim I’m a creationist for that reason.
At the core of this debate lies the fact that if evolution did not create life on this earth – then Allah must have.
I have thought long and hard over this comment. I still cannot understand this, what exactly do you mean that a virus only needs to change shape!
Well concider what mutation would be beneficial, would it be as advanced as the mutation needed for the development of the eye for example? No, it does not, it's not the same leage not even the same ball game. All a virus has to do to becom resistant is shapeshift.
creatures alive today have no eyes yet retain the genetic coding to have them. For example like bats & moles, some crabs are now born without eyes retain the genetic coding for eyes and still develop "rods" to which the eyes use to be attached but are not any longer.
Well there you go. It's not a case of the first step in evolution, but rather the disapearence of a charesteristic. Wich is exactly what I was trying to say. These inactive genes aren't the first step, they 'r a step back.
I find your other point dogmatic, you accept inactuve genes can become active again yet you state thier is no reason to believe this to happen. Not only DOES it happen but it is one of the biggest causes of cancer when it does happen. Of course cancer is not the only cause of inactive genes reactivating. But if what you claim is true then we simply would not have half the cancers around today. The bombshell is that we do.
I see how that can sound contradictive. Allow me to explain it better with the bat example. So the bat has lost his eyes because he no longer needs them, at some point however, it is possible for an offspring to have his eyes back, since the gene is still (inactivly) carried. It would be absurd however to assume that that's how the eye evolved because it obviously postphones the question to the earlier eye, the one before bat lost it.
You once said you was an atheist. I don't understand why you don't display basic evolutionary understanding. Evolution in all species today did not require to start from scratch, since we share about 70% of genes to all life (both active and inactive). It would be just plain dumb to think we need to mutate an eye, for our crab for example when the genetic coding for it already exists albeit redundant. Your point is worthless for your understanding of redundent/active genes is way off the real world.
Don't push the limit of your bias over to my side. First of all that 70% is just plain bull**** 70 % what? What exactly is it that was measured to make such a claim? How many animal DNA is decyphered? How do you compare Diffrent DNA's How do you calculate such a statistic. Come on, don't believe everything you'r fed. Secondly what do you base your claim of my of-world-vieuw on redundant genes on? You'r building a strawman here. As I said before: there is no knowledge of a creature that suddenly mutated an inactive gene-thread wich can be concidered as a jumpstart for the evolution of the eye. You can claim there was, but this is one of the gaps evolution has, and the gap will be black unless it would be filled.
and so it does, with some gaps.
Well sore but It simply doesn't cut the mustard. there's to many gaps and to many oddities. In a way I find it takes more blind faith then creationism does.
But what we kbow so far is enough to show creationism is a lie.
O for crying out loud! Are you seriously interested in gaining any knowledge here? Or are you just playing games. Everytime You made that statement I challenged you on it, and everytime you failed. Failed to show how this is so. Failed to bring absolete proof of the opposite. Failed that several times you acknowledge that in the end of the day it's just personal preference. That no theory can overwhelmingly blast the other away. It's all a matter of paradigms, invisioning and interpretation.
But here you are again making that repugnant, ignorant, and vain statement.
You are missing the point. Secondary source of air which involves extra heart valves and evolution does the rest........
No, I don't think so, it's not a matter of how many chambers the haerth has, but a matter of how the bloodvessel go.
With all the debating you have done with me. You have yet to provide one credible source for creationism, This is typical since you have no evidence.
Well I haven't even tried. I'm not out to proof creationism, I never did, nor did I bring the impression. What I was out to, is showing that evolution has many gaps and absolutely no proof. Whereas creationism doesn't have gaps. It was never my intention to proof anything to you. You can find your own proofs if you need 'm. All I want to do is show people that there's a valid alternative. That science has not driven people to believe in evolution by default.
You think this really means something to us on a daily basis? You think this is a weak spot from wich you can tackly our religion? the only reason I care to discuss this is because sometimes people get so overwhelmed by the technicality of evolutionist's arguments that they begin to think evolution is a certainty. I'm not so vain to think I can convince evelutionists to my point of vieuw, bring them over sort of speak. Not because my beliefs and logic arent strong enoughf, but simply because a paradigms a wall of diffrent bricks wich can't be crippled by taking out a single stone. A replacement stone will always be ready. It's a safehaven of the mind, and unless there's a serious obvious reason to do so, people like to keep it safe and predictable.
Well concider what mutation would be beneficial, would it be as advanced as the mutation needed for the development of the eye for example? No, it does not, it's not the same leage not even the same ball game. All a virus has to do to becom resistant is shapeshift.
You don't really think the eye was a result of a single mutation as you seem to imply as such.
OK, you lost me. Why would a virus need to simply shapeshift to become immune to something like an antibiotic, you hail the champion of arguements presented by complexity then tramp all over it by saying "All the virus has to do is shape-shift". How do you propose that happens!!!!!!! (Over simplistic)
Well antibiotics is another thing but concider for example the capacity of white bloodcells (I'm not so sure their called white blood cells in English could be a poor translation, I mean the blood cells responsable for immunesystem) to defeat a virus. It is mainly due to a certain shape fitting inside a certain receptor. In this world shape is everything. When You look at how Human DNA works, you see that their are a ton of interactions between "The enzyme DNA tells you to make" and "the final endresult in which the DNA manifest itsself". To see something evolving here would be a much more balanced elegance then a simple evolution of a virus.
Well antibiotics is another thing but concider for example the capacity of white bloodcells (I'm not so sure their called white blood cells in English could be a poor translation, I mean the blood cells responsable for immunesystem) to defeat a virus. It is mainly due to a certain shape fitting inside a certain receptor. In this world shape is everything. When You look at how Human DNA works, you see that their are a ton of interactions between "The enzyme DNA tells you to make" and "the final endresult in which the DNA manifest itsself". To see something evolving here would be a much more balanced elegance then a simple evolution of a virus.
Steve - Perhaps we drop this line of enquiry since the human immune system that you are describing is of no issue here.
Root - First I’d like to apologise for not replying for some time. September means student life starts again and free time soon disappears so I have not been able to find time to keep up with this. Secondly, a different debate has continued between yourself and Steve so I will simply state what I have to say on some points you have raised.
OK, Cool
Quote:Root
This is the guts of our debate in reference to the Evolution of the human eyes. Firstly, I would like to express what mutation actually can be within evolutionary fields. Organisms carry an enormous arsenal of inactive genes and residual DNA. I think some of the mutations that we find that have resulted in beneficial changes occur when a gene that was once active and beneficial millions of years ago for an ancestor with a different niche becomes active again and provides a new advantage now that the organism has again changed environments.
AZIM - It doesn’t matter how many inactive genes are carried since they would have to get their in the first place. This is completely irrelevant to the topic of debate – why mention it?
I mentioned it because some people wrongly assume Humans and a lot of other species needed to evolve an eye which is simply not the case.
Quote:Root
Evolution does not have to create from scratch and it rarely does. We have to bear in mind that ALL LIFE SHARES A BIG GENETIC MATCH.
AZIM - So…the very first cells in the earliest stages of evolution shared a big genetic match with me. No. So evolution does have to start from scratch. You are defending evolution from the present day back; I’m talking about evolution from the beginning forward. If the theory is correct, it should be valid both ways.
No, You share a genetic match from them! and thus have redundant genes no longer active, evolution CAN and DOES use redundent inactive genes for adaptation which is evolution & yes Evolution can work both ways.
Quote:Root
If we now go back to known evolutionary beginnings then firstly (and I do not know myself) why does it have to be a single celled organism that developed light sensitive cells.
AZIM - It doesn’t matter whethers it is single or multi-celled, the point remains that at least ONE cell would have to become sensitive to light. This leads back to my original argument. Feels like we’re going in circles here.
I agree with you, it's just you said single cell, so I thought you was looking at single celled life to develop/mutate light sensitive cells. And as you make clear and I agree with you light sensitive cell mutation could have occured in multi-cellular life.
Quote:Root
The lungfish have adapted the swim bladder as a lung by diverting the artery from the sixth gill arch directly to it.
AZIM - How exactly does evolution ‘divert’ the artery? How exactly does a swim bladder become a lung? I thought you had a decent knowledge about evolution and biology. This saldy proves you otherwise. A swim bladder is a sack full of air. A lung is a complex organ with hundreds of processes going on.
Perhaps you should find answers to those questions instead of asking me to do your homework! However, I will help point you to a good starting point:
the rest of your explanation relating to the four-chambered heart has one major flaw. It doesn’t explain how a four-chambered heart came into existence through evolution, it explains ‘why’, but science asks ‘how’, and that is what I asked you.
Not sure I fully understand you here. Perhaps you could expand.
AZIM - cre•a•tion•ism (kr - sh -n z m)
n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.
I’d prefer not to claim I’m a creationist for that reason.
But you do take the literal view of genesis, right?
AZIM - At the core of this debate lies the fact that if evolution did not create life on this earth – then Allah must have.
Sorry, can't accept your over simplified approach. Firstly, evolution does not cover the "creation" of life so your point is not valid.
[Science is not allowed to make assumptions. That is called an hypothosis,]
root if they are not allowed then y do they assume things......y do they make me write up an experiment wif a hypothosis.....lol they sure doo make many assumptions as they taught me to do the same thing
can some one just breifly explain why the focus her has been so specificaly on the eye? i mean, why did darwin say that the thought of the eye amde him cold?
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Array
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks